[I’m posting my comment at T19 over here.]

Good grief.  What has this man said?  . . . “worse than Britain during its imperial heyday”—WHAT?

I’m sure that Britain did some amazingly wonderful things for its colonized subject countries, but I believe that the money and the slaves—unlike the case of the US and Iraq—flowed from the colonized to the colonizer.

I would be more than happy to cut all of our foreign aid and start spending it on refurbishing our borders.  But somehow I don’t think that that’s what the ABC has in mind.

What he’d like is that we 1) allow terrorists to have free reign in our country, killing thousands on domestic soul, 2) yammer with the UN, 3) give a lot of money away, and 4) form a Lambeth Committee, I suppose.

It’s always embarrassing when religious leaders comment on matters of which they are inexpert—China, healthcare, Adam Smith, military strategy.

NT Wright does it all the time, and I’m always embarrassed for such a brilliant man in his own area commenting on matters which he knows very little of.

It’s a little like my waxing eloquent on flexible sigmoidoscopies or the practice of weaving in 12th century France.

The knowledge gap is simply staggering.

Ah well . . . though I don’t agree with Williams on so much within Anglicanism, I appreciate reading him when he’s talking about something that he knows about.

And thankfully, what he says about foreign policy is not, I think, very meaningful to those setting foreign policy in any nation at all.

In the meantime, let’s amuse ourselves trying to find some American equivalent to the Opium Wars.  That was surely a high point in the moral exercise of British Imperial Power.

carl

I don’t know if he’s amoral, but I agree with the rest of your statement.  Further, I give a 50-50 chance your wish (and mine) that Rowan’s tenure end will be granted by the end of 2008.  Remember that I said that.

He seems to get his role backwards just a bit.  He seems to think bashing U.S. foreign policy to a Muslim group is what he should be about instead of putting the Episcopal Church in its place and protecting the orthodoxy of the Anglican Communion.

By “amoral,” I mean “Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.”

If it weren’t for America, then Britain, France, and for that matter most of Western Europe would be speaking German and/or Russian right now, and eating spaetzle and/or borscht. Surely that can be counted - even by Rowan Williams - as a Good Thing.

America gives more to charitable organizations than any other country in the world. It supports the budget of the UN out of all proportion to its representation there, and in the face of rampant contempt from most other member nations.

The inability of Rowan Williams to consider the tremendous and tangible good done by America, with the vague descriptions of the bad he’s said it’s done, I believe can be described - charitably, I might add - as “amoral.”

BB linked to this interview last night and have been thinking about it. We, Yanks, have been trying to use our superpower status for a long time and get little credit for it. I think of the liberation of Europe and the Marshall plan and the defeat of the Japanese who committed such terrible atrocities in China. Yes, we have had disasters like Vietnam or Central America but unlike other countries (excepting Britain and Australia which have also been stalwarts), we are not afraid to shed American blood for the freedom of others. I was listening to an NPR report this morning on the Bosnian Serb conflict and was thinking back on how we were criticized for our intervention for the cause of the muslims there. (Of course, the NPR report gave no credit to the Americans.) There is an exhibit at the Holocaust museum in St. Louis. St. Louis has about 50,000 Bosnian refugees.

History will judge the Iraq war. The liberal press so soon forgets the chemical weapons used by Hussein. From more recent, level headed reports, Al-Qaeda has taken a military and public opinion beating.

Dear Archbishop Williams,

In light of the usefulness and intellectual coherence of your “imperialist” statements, you might want to think seriously about keeping your day job.

...Oh.  Uh.  Er. Never mind.  Belay that; we’d prefer you didn’t. 

Signed,
the majority of the world-wide Anglican Communion

I saw this link about 3 a.m. your time and I’ve been steaming ever since.  Like so many leftists, this guy is stuck in the 60s, with a hefty overlay of British superiority complex and a woefully lacking knowledge of history—his own country’s!

I wish, rather than making outrageous comments on matters in which he has no expertise, he would turn his attention to doing something in the sphere in which he does have responsibility, which is the Anglican Communion, now crumbling around his feet.

Should we expect some lame semi-correction to come out of Lambeth?  I won’t hold my breath.  But I would like to know why we should listen to him since he demonstrates such profound understanding of “leadership.”

Rowan Williams has already proven his inability to make statements about a subject he does know something about.  Witness the clarifications that follow some of his statements.  Why should the world give him any credibility pertaining to a subject about which he knows nothing?  Every time he opens his mouth an AC that isn’t necessarily tied to Canterbury becomes more attractive.  Who wants to be led by an academic pawn?

THE Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.

It would be hard to find a (sane) person who is more critical of American foreign policy than I am, but this statement is absurd.  Britain was the ultimate example of imperialism at its zenith; an empire on which it was said that “the sun never sets and the blood never dries.” The United States is exceedingly bellicose and militaristic, but it’s imperial endeavors have been limited.  These have mostly consisted of supporting puppet governments in small third-world countries and then stepping in militarily when those puppet governments could not stand by themselves. 

he is a spineless, hypocritical, amoral buffoon. The sooner this church is rid of his “leadership,” the better. 

But what do you really think about the guy? 

But he won’t, because he is a spineless, hypocritical, amoral buffoon. The sooner this church is rid of his “leadership,” the better.

Very well said, my friend; couldn’t have said it better.  What a joke for a “leader”................just remember, it could get worse when/if Charlie-boy becomes king!  His comments, and kow-towing to the Muslims are infuriating..........not to mention his comments about the “imperialist” US...........

If it weren’t for America, then Britain, France, and for that matter most of Western Europe would be speaking German and/or Russian right now, and eating spaetzle and/or borscht. Surely that can be counted - even by Rowan Williams - as a Good Thing.

I hope that Dr. Williams is not trying to appease the Muslims in Britain by attacking America.  It is a craven strategy, but it has been known to work.

Gee, maybe the solution to Iraq is to export their wealth, steal their jewels and other national treasures, stamp out inconvenient religious sects, present the country to the emperor George as his personal property, make them speak English, and drink more gin.  The White Druid thinks that this would be the more Christian thing to do.

Rowan’s recent outburst against the US reminds me to ask a small but telling question that’s nagged me for a bit:  Who signs his paycheck, the Crown (read the P.M. Mr. Brown) or the CofE/Anglican Communion Office?  If it’s the former, why isn’t he running the Anglican Communion rather than trying to be in charge of the Foreign Office?  If it’s the latter, why isn’t he doing his freaking job? I mean, parishioners are leaving individual Episcopal churches by the gross, parishes by the dozens at a time, four dioceses are poised to cut ties, bishops jumping ship to Rome or other more friendly environs, lawsuits and presentments flying like birds heading south for the winter, clergy and their families are left, or threatened to be, without healthcare and/or pensions (subjects ostensibly dear to leftists trying to get into office) turning their very lives upside down, but noooooo, Rowan dithers…oh, and sucks up to Muslims? How long, Lord, before you rid us of this trifling cleric?

I hate for my first ever comment to be so out of tune with the majority but I have to side with the Archbishop.  I can’t see the Jesus of the Gospels being on board with Bush’s Pax Americana.  And while the comparison to imperial Britain may not be all that helpful to his overall point, +RW (with the pope and others) is right to call the US out for its current foreign/foreigner policies.  I fear too many Christians in the US mistakenly assume their American citizenship is compatible (nay, almost identical!) with their Heavenly citizenship when, in fact, there is a very real sense in which these are probably best seen as mutually exclusive.  At any rate, kudos Dr. Williams.

Dear Chipmonks,
Having hopefully read what I just wrote, don’t assume that I agree with US foreign policy. Even though I consider myself a GOPer, if I told you what I think of GB I would in all likelihood be banned from posting.  My point is that Rowan is sticking his beard where it doesn’t need to be.  When one’s house is on fire I find it most inappropriate and lacking a certain nuanced set of priorities to be concerned with what the neighbors are decorating their lawn with.

I hope that Dr. Williams is not trying to appease the Muslims in Britain by attacking America.  It is a craven strategy, but it has been known to work.

The crocodile might just eat him last now.  Has there ever been a man less fit for his job and time than ++Rowan?

The rest of my response is a two-word Anglo-Saxon expression that would surely be caught in SF’s filters.

I was merely making a general comment with regards to the above and not necessarily in relation to your specific post, bjoyfull, but I appreciate the clarification nonetheless.  If I may (unfairly) play on your metaphor, however, insofar as Christ as head of the Church is the King of the Universe, should his body entertain notions of boundaries with regards to its/his house and the troubles therein? (Surely I misread you to have analogically equated a preemptive war with the neighbor’s lawn art in this scenario) Indeed, I think the same go-it-alone mentality that we see in both the Bush administration and the TEC higher-ups is reflective of the same fundamental (American) problem, one which is rightly called into question by the global Christian community.  We can discuss whether or not RW is addressing the various manifestations of that fundamental (American) problem evenhandedly, but he’s certainly right on its being incarnated in current American foreign/foreigner policy.

The reason America “goes it alone” (with Great Britain, it should be noted) is that the rest of the West has so perfectly gelded itself that it is incapable of going at all.  Perhaps ++Rowan and you would prefer China spreading its form of government?  Or maybe Saudi?

or ancient Rome, eh Jeffersonian?

Carl suggests,

… let’s amuse ourselves trying to find some American equivalent to the Opium Wars.  That was surely a high point in the moral exercise of British Imperial Power.

I’d go with the Spanish-American war.  It was undertaken a) to provide coaling stations in the Pacific to allow the US Navy to (partially) compete with the Royal Navy in that area, but primarily b) to further an “open door” policy in Asia, meaning “the US gets its cut of the Chinese market even though the European mercantilists were there first.” This is the war, you’ll recall, where McKinley pointed out that it was our duty to “bring Christianity to our little Filipino brothers”, when in fact the Philippines had been predominantly Catholic for two centuries.

Anyone who expects consistently moral and upstanding behavior from political institutions has bought into the cardboard-cutout version of history so popular on the Left (including, of course, +++Rowan).  I note that the ABC doesn’t mention Belgium in the Congo, Japan in Manchuria, Spain in the New World, the Soviet Union in the Caucasus, the Boer War, Muslim conquests anywhere at all, etc. etc. etc.

It is not, I suppose, surprising, but still somewhat discouraging that the good Archbishop doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on the historic implications of the doctrine of Original Sin.

Brother Chip,
I do indeed sympathize with your point of religious leaders not having boundaries when dealing with real or perceived injustices in the world but that is not my focus here.  My aim is set squarely on a man that has the power to do something about his own realm of RESPONSIBILITY but doesn’t LIFT A FINGER, yet, tries to use the powers of his office, that he won’t even exercise within his own domain, and gather, at least, some respect for his opinions before he sets his sights higher.

The pusillanimous old fraud also forgets that the Balkans wasn’t stabilized until the US did the job the Eurotrash refused to do.  His comments about the role of the Christian church in this country are more of the typical cartoons and bumper stickers N. T. Wright and secular liberals are so unfortunately fond of.  The sooner Anglicans are rid of this embarrassing joke of an Archbishop, the better.

or ancient Rome, eh Jeffersonian?

I’m not sure the Romans are available. 

“All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” - Monty Python’s Life of Brian

Warning, these thoughts deserve a good copy editing but I hope they have some logical cohesiveness.

There are a number of things to be seriously annoyed at (okay, in honor of Sir Winston “at which to be seriously annoyed). In addition to the interview itself, and certainly more inflammatory, was the Times article. From the headline to the selected quotes the writer, Abul Taher, sought the type of sensationalism I thought was reserved to the Sun. Shame on the Times.

Shame also on ++Rowan. Katherine’s comment (above) “Like so many leftists, this guy is stuck in the 60s, . . . .” is right on the money. Even though the entire interview is less in your face than the newspaper’s hack job, his anti-American bias comes shining through. It is one thing he has in common with the loony left in the US Congress and with TEC’s ruling clique: hatred of the US and appeasement of those who would destroy it. What concerns me the most is Dr. William’s complete lack of understanding of 9-11 and by extension, his lack of concern for Great Britain’s security. Were he an American, I would put him in the category of those giving aid and comfort to our enemy. He might also be taken by the new PM. Mr. Brown’s politics seem a better fit for him than Mr. Blair’s.

Almost immediately after the story broke in the wee hours this morning, I posted a comment on the HOB/D listserv suggesting that it might be time for Dr. Williams to step aside. Several people responded on the list and to my email. The general consensus was that if Williams resigned or retired, the next likely ABC would be +Michael Nazir-Ali and how this would be a disaster and the end of the Anglican Communion. I agree it would be a disaster--for the rulers of TEC and ACC.

The good news (although not so good for me since I turn 65 in a couple months) is the hippies and flower children of the 1960s are now passing from power. The next generation of leaders in our church come from a more moderate times.

Reaching a bit, let me put forth this analogy: The situation in Anwar Province has turned around so dramatically that even the Arab press acknowledges it. Reason: the people on the street and in the shops had enough.  I sense the beginnings of discontent among the good Christians who half-fill our pews and are not otherwise involved. The blatant behavior of TEC’s PB and her sycophants and the transmogrification of the rites and rituals of our worship have many people asking questions and seeking information from sources other than their bishops.

If this trend continues and flourishes; indecisive, appeasing, US-bashing Rowan Williams unwittingly will be remembered as one of the catalysts of change.

Bob

When this man was criticizing America with his mouth, did he still have his hand out for American money? 

I wonder which, though, is worse:  an imperialist or a wet noodle.  At least imperialists have initiative, drive, and fire in their tail.

I was REALLY asking the question of any of you readers that may be knowledgeable about this:  Who signs Rowan’s paycheck...er..a...stipend? Who actually pays this freeloading fraud?

Boy Rowan is the one of the worst lackeys and appeasers of Islamist and Muslim evil and imperialistic designs upon England and the rest of the west.He is nothing more than a dhimmi. Whether it is his inaction over the state of the Anglican Communion or groveling to Muslims , he is certainly one unimpressive embarrassment. May he resign and promptly shut the hell up. What a fool he insults the Us , while ignoring the real danger posed by Islam. The US is by no means perfect or beyond criticism,but these comments are really a big old,offensive,insulting,dishonest pile of (insert word here).

CJ reminds us,

… the Balkans wasn’t stabilized until the US did the job the Eurotrash refused to do.

Yup, and we did a dynamite job of it for the Germans.  The only minor quibble, of course, is that we were on the wrong side…

Brother Geek,
Sure, he boldly had his hand out.  The ones writing the checks are the audience he’s appealing to...Trinity Church Wall Street, et. al.

It also occurs to me that, because of American “imperialism"(or is it “defense"), +++RW here is not obligated to make his comments in German. 

I guess he’d better be hoping that Al Qaeda’s next target is not Lloyd’s of London or equivalent…

I’ve written a short friendly letter to Rowan:

Dear Rowan,

I can’t help but notice you’d rather bash us eeeevil imperialistic Americans than fulfill the responsibilities of your office to defend the faith and the church from apostasies and heresies. Now, don’t deny it. The Bishop of New Hampshire might as well deny he’s gay. It’s kind of hard to miss—imperialistic Americans are bad; heretic Episcopalian Americans . . . get invited to tea at Lambeth. Yeah, it’s that obvious.

But hey, I don’t blame you. Bashing eeeevil imperialistic Americans is more fun than dealing with heresy and apostasy.

So I have a friendly suggestion.

Why not leave the Archbishopric of Canterbury and join The Guardian as an op-ed writer? There, bashing eeeevil imperialistic Americans is part of the job description.

You’ll be a lot happier. And you’ll improve both institutions, too.

You’re welcome. Always glad to help.

Very sincerely,

Mark

Despite all the sound and fury, I haven’t yet read a single post which seeks to defend current US foreign policy.  Only name calling and belittling comments.  The opening salvo of epithets from a blog host is most discouraging, as it sets the tone for the commenters.  This joint really is becoming more and more like that unnamed blog which demonstrates few Christian virtues.  Can’t we do better?

If only he had said this with regard his area of expertise and the tragedy unfolding within his own domain, the undermining of marriage and the Bible:

On the Iraq war he wants to:  “keep before the government and others the great question of how you can actually contribute to a responsible civil society in a context when you’ve undermined most of the foundations on which that society is built.”
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
emel magazine page 32

With all due respect Bro.CT, this doesn’t seem to me to be the place for that.  If that’s the type of discussion you’re looking for, I suggest you look to a secular blog...like Fr. Jake’s… or some place like that. We’re looking for Rowan to do SOMETHING for the orthodox in distress.  The Titanic is going down and he can’t even summon up the sheet music for the orchestra.

My aim is set squarely on a man that has the power to do something about his own realm of RESPONSIBILITY but doesn’t LIFT A FINGER, yet, tries to use the powers of his office, that he won’t even exercise within his own domain, and gather, at least, some respect for his opinions before he sets his sights higher.

Point taken, bjoyfull (though I tend to take +RW’s perceived inactivity as being active in a different direction).  My initial reaction to your post, however, is to want to draw a contrast between the gravity of tens of thousands being killed in/by an unjust war ("just" wars being the figments of imperial imaginations) with international ecclesiastical politicking, but I can see why that might be a wrongheaded characterization of the latter pole.  (Surely the pursuit of orthodoxy is an enterprise entirely separate from the will to power, right +Akinola?) My second reaction is to want to question what power +RW really has given the way many Common Cause bishops speak of diocesan autonomy and independence with regard to larger (geographical) ecclesiastical structuring, but that too may be a misguided way to proceed.  My third reaction is to keep my initial two impulses to myself and largely concede your general point, private caveats aside.

But he won’t, because he is a spineless, hypocritical, amoral buffoon. The sooner this church is rid of his “leadership,” the better.

Greg, I am sorry indeed that in your personal frustration with the Archbishop of Canterbury (which many of us share) you allowed yourself to descend to such epithets. To me it looks like a contravention of the advice given at the bottom of this page, reminding us of Matthew 5:43-45.

At the same time I am saddened with you that the archbishop should feel so free to criticize US foreign policy while maintaining a studied silence on issues that directly affects the church of which he is a shepherd.

Despite all the sound and fury, I haven’t yet read a single post which seeks to defend current US foreign policy.

But I think that’s the point.  Nobody is saying “What do you mean, US foreign policy is and always has been on the side of the angels!” They’re mostly saying: 

1) “Big powerful countries frequently act badly.  In fact, it’s impossible to name a big powerful country that HASN’T acted badly (some EXCEEDINGLY badly) and it’s hard to name a whole pile of small ones either (except as a function of being close to powerless.) Since England has been, historically, one of the badest, if an English person must criticize another country, they would do well not to do it in the context of comparing it unfavorably with their own history.

2) This guy is currently faced with a crisis of leadership of historic proportions.  His overall performance appears to be dismal.  Perhaps he should concentrate on showing the world the way to successfully resolve conflict before he begins to pontificate on other subjects.

Brother Chip,
Although you seem to believe that something (positive?) is afoot in the background, Rowan’s deafening silence reminds me of the guy who’s caught by his boss sleeping while on watch and when awakened simply says “Amen”. I won’t get into a discussion of just and unjust wars here other than to say that their is a myriad of opinion about this war that weave into and out of agreement with your stated position without enabling Muslimo-Fascist elements of our society and that of the Euro-Vichy’s .  I am not suggesting for a nano second that you that you subscribe to that. I have strong political views but I also need to stop and pay the mortgage. We’re still talking about priorities here.

As the archbishop of Canterbury, he does have authority to call the Primates Meeting and rescind invitations to Lambeth. He could lead by example to stop the undermining and begin the restoration and preservation of “the foundations on which that society is built,”—the Bible and Marriage.

At the risk of appearing obnoxious about it, I repeat my earlier question in case someone out there knows the answer...who pays Rowan?

bjoyfull:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is paid a stipend of £66,140 (2006-2007.)

He is paid by the Church of England as authorized by the Commissioners of the Church. Last year he got a 2.7% raise.

Much of the money for Lambeth and other events comes from TEC and others but the C of E itself is not in dire financial straits.

He is appointed by the Crown from two candidates recommended by the Prime Minister.

Bob

notworthyofthename,

In the same spirit that we remind folks how we can love our gay-activist brothers and sisters, while at the same time criticizing them, I would remind folks that I can criticize Rowan Williams while remaining true to Matthew 5:43-45. He is spineless (can’t bring himself to make the tough decisions needed to defend his church). He is hypocritical (derides the Bush administration’s “imperialism” while kowtowing to 815’s imperialism). In his apparent inability to evaluate properly the faults of the American government vs. the faults of various Islamic countries, he is amoral. And all of it taken together gives the overwhelming impression of someone not to be taken seriously, which is what a buffoon is.

That said, I love him as a brother in Christ, and I do pray for him. But none of that keeps from hoping that his tenure as the Archbishop of Canterbury comes to an end very, very soon.

Despite all the sound and fury, I haven’t yet read a single post which seeks to defend current US foreign policy.

Some American foreign policy is stupid - solicitousness of the Saudis, deference to eliminationist anti-semites in the West Bank, abandonment of Taiwan - but I seriously doubt ++Rowan was criticizing those policies.  Which policies, in particular, are you speaking of?

he is a spineless, hypocritical, amoral buffoon. The sooner this church is rid of his “leadership,” the better. 

Greg, could not agree more.  Does he know nothing of D-Day and so much more American sacrifice to keep Europe free?  Does he not know what/who brought the Berlin wall down?  The only land this nation claims outside our boundaries are the graves of our dead heroes.

I suppose the reason he’s kissing up to the Muslim crowd is that no one in Rome will talk with a church leader who won’t condemn the TEC heresies.  He is a joke and an embarrassment to the Anglican Communion.

Thanks for that Bob.  That’s been one of those burning questions that’s constantly been at the forefront of my musings as I watch the ice in my scotch melt. I am usually pretty proficient at googling information like that but that one has eluded me until now.
Peace.

Connecticutian,

I don’t care to get into a long discussion of US foreign policy, although I believe that we did the right - albeit painful - thing in Iraq, flawed as it was in execution here and there. Wars are messy things. The important question is why they are fought, and what their long-lasting effects are.

I know that there are political conservatives here who disagree with me, and I respect their opinions. I know there are political liberals here who also disagree with me, and I respect their opinions too. There are perfectly good arguments against the Iraq war in particular, and the thrust of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in general, and they are worth hearing. I personally don’t agree with every detail of either, but by and large I’m happy with what the administration is doing. I believe much of the world - Russia, China, and hardline Islamic countries, for example - doesn’t want the administration’s policies to succeed for the simple reason that they’re not in those countries’ best interests. I believe that of those countries for which the administration’s policies are in their best interests, many of them - particularly in Western Europe - are so overrun with Muslims and so averse to conflict as to be happier doing the simple thing (appeasing radical Islam and slamming America) than the hard thing (standing up for western democracy and cultural values). At times like this - when America’s role over the last 90 years in ensuring the survival of Europe is forgotten, and America as a whole is belittled - I’m tempted to say, The next time Europe is faced with an invasion by a force that threatens its very survival, America should do nothing, and let Europe sink; but as I watch Europe’s steady slide into dhimmi-tude, I don’t have to wish for it… they’re doing it themselves. The ironic thing about it all is, there will almost certainly be a point at which Europe realizes that without drastic, immediate and overwhelming action, it will cease to exist as the world has known it for centuries; but there won’t be any country against which to declare war… no army against which to march… just a slow, final death about which no one will be able to do a thing.

bjoyfull,
I do hope it’s only a small cube or two melting in your whisky.
Bob the uisge-beatha snob. ;>}

Only two small ones...don’t want to waste the valuable real estate.

Holy Scripture says something about removing the log from your own eye BEFORE offering to remove the moat from your brother’s eye.  Native American wisdom talks about walking in another person’s moccasins.
The ABC is a big man and he makes a big target.  Casting dispersions on the ABC is like lofting a horse apple at the broad side of the barn; you are bound to hit it somewhere.  You may feel better, if it were a thoroughly dry one, but it does not affect the barn.  If you throw a fresh one it might leave a smudge on the side of the barn, but it will also leave you with dung on your hands.

Lay off the ABC!  What right have you to criticize another man’s servant?  If you see him as your enemy, pray for him, Jesus tells you to!

Personally, I do not have any substantial problems-- either moral, ethical, or political-- with the history of British Imperialism. On balance, I think that the Brits did rather a good job of keeping large areas of the globe relatively stable and of elevating the economic and intellectual well-being of many, if not most, of the people who lived within the British Empire. Yes-- obviously-- they did some stupid things and caused a fair measure of grief, at times, along with the good that they did. But, as scholars such as Nial Ferguson have rather decisively pointed out in numerous books, overall, the British colonial record (and the post-colonial history of the nations that comprised the British Empire) is pretty impressive. So, to say that America is somehow “worse” than the Brits is not such a bad thing, in and of itself, as far as I am concerned… Having now said this, I must also say that it is not at all clear what the ABC means when he employs a very loose and nebulous term like “imperialism.” This guy, when he was first given the job at Lambeth Palace, was sold to us as being some sort of “scholar.” It is increasingly clear to me that his academic credentials conceal some areas of very sloppy and decidedly uncritical thinking.

Frances,

Re motes and beams… howzabout the ABC goes first?

has joined the fray.

I have a blog thingy

Didn’t I read somewhere that the editorial policies of the publication and what parts of the interview the person conducting it chooses to publish determines what apprears in print?  Does the ABC deserve all the negative comment?

Victor Davis Hanson has joined the fray.

[Sorry about the previous defective post]

I have a blog thingy

This is further evidence that he is sees the world through the same lense as TEC’s leadership, who to a person would agree with the gist of his comments.

One can certainly make a reasonable argument that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, although the end of that story has yet to be written.  But his article suggests something much deeper, a bitter resentment at conservatives in the US, and a “all paths lead to heaven” desire to blur the distinctions between Islam and Christianity.

Nevertheless, I am sure someone, somewhere, will post a story indicating that these comments are yet another part of Rowan’s super-secret plan to rescue the orthodox in the US.

bjoyfull, I’m not sure how productive this will be but, yes, I wonder about the unspoken and purposeful positives that are active in +RW’s inactivity. And in terms or “priorities” and the need to “pay the mortgage,” while I think priority language confuses the moral/ethical issues with regard to the act and the good, insofar as Christians have “priorities,” speaking out against injustice is near the top of the list.  Most of the global Christian community seems (rightly) to be in agreement that American foreign/foreigner policies are unjust and have, like +RW, spoken to that effect.  In terms of the alleged injustices within the current Anglican Communion (I’m not denying their existence with the term “alleged” as much as I’m indicating the multifarious locales of such as have been assigned), things seem less clear cut - at least to some of us.  I realize that most folks on this site would claim greater clarity than I have at present but I think it might explain the perceived (non)enactment of +RW’s “priorities.” In short, American imperialism is obviously unjust and fairly easy to call into account; the current justice crises in the Anglican Communion seems less clear-cut (to me and I suspect +RW, as well) requiring different strategies and more delicate handling.  I imagine it is on this point where I can expect to get punched in the electronic eye, but there you have it. 
The other side to my thinking here is one that has a keen (to be punched) eye out for which parties/groups/individuals within the Anglican Communion seem driven by issues of (or, perhaps better, to operate by means of) power and those willing to be led to the proverbial cross.  In other words, what does/should Christlike pacifism (the means to the kingdom!) look like amongst ordained Anglicans and who’s living it out in this situation?  This will no doubt get me punched in my other electronic eye, but I wonder if +RW is doing the best job so far? That’s woefully too short, too ambiguous, and too provocative a notion to flesh out at the moment but it might to some degree help clarify my approach to the above.

I always considered Dr Williams a coward and inept bureaucrat but now I can add blithering idiot and embarrassment.  Tell me again how astute he is and how, in the end, he will come through for the traditional Church if we are just patient and I will tell you another fairytale with a bad ending.  May the ending to this farce be soon.

Perhaps the US should remember that when the British are needing another dose of lend-lease in the next set-to or the next time Islamists try to bomb subways or planes there.

FWIW,

I think he’s a good and godly man. The headline to the article is rather unfortunate. His actual remarks were somewhat milder than the report would lead you to believe.

However, he may wish to restrict himself to ecclesiastical matters in the future. I think everyone who is familiar with current events would agree that he has more than enough to keep him busy within his own area of responsibility.

I have a blog thingy

Victor Davis Hanson’s essay gets a link from the #1 conservative/libertarian blog, Instapundit who labels the ABC “risible.”

Despite all the sound and fury, I haven’t yet read a single post which seeks to defend current US foreign policy.

While by no means a thorough-going “defense of current US foreign policy” (with which I have plenty of disagreements), I invite you and other SF commenters to check out my response here.

/shameless bid for traffic

I understand the real anger in response to the Times article, but think that an injustice has been done to the ABC - if you read that actual article of what he actually said it bears little or no relationship to what the Times wrote.  The actual interview is here and can be read by increasing the size of the pane if it is too small:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/arch2.pdf
alternatively Ruth Campbell has it quoted on her blog here:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/11/why-we-should-a.html
Read what he actually said rather than the comment - it is not what the Times has reported.

Baby Blue sees rightly that ++Rowan, somewhere in his response, is probably conflating the arrogant attitude of the American Episcopal Church with the American foreign policy of the last few years.  She and we should recognize that there would be some justice in his conflation of them; there is a national “family likeness” in the unilateral and duplicitous way the administration leaders and the 815 leaders deal with the rest of the world.  This parallel has been mentioned by others in the Communion, including the Global South.  Even so, it is surprising if ++Williams does not recognize the evils of British imperialism (he has at times spoken of them to condemn them); it is surprising, too, that he does not mention any of the many things America has done during and after the two great wars to stabilize Europe.  But notice that his whole interview is much more nuanced than the news article makes it sound.

Still, I can not help quoting Dr. Michael Poon, Convener of the Global South Education and Formation Track, in Singapore.  The author of such excellent papers as “Heart of Darkness” (about the hollowness of the New Orleans statement) and “The Long Road to Full Inheritance,” he knows who the “imperialists” are and certainly doesn’t find either America or Britain prefereable: “. . . the Secretary General [of the AC] and some Anglican leaders ­ both left and right wing ­ should let go of their patronising attitude. . . . They should stop using Africa, Latin America and Asia as a battle field to further their own interests. . . .  [T]hose who have money dictate the listening processes by organizing meetings and shaping opinions at their own whim.  America and Britain are still acting like huge vacuum pumps that suck up the brains and treasures from the rest of the world, and impoverish it further by their financial machineries. . . .  I think America and Britain need to be more critical of the empire building attitude that is endemic to the present structures [of the Church/Communion].”

I will also quote the late Fr. Adrian Hastings, RC theologian in England and Africa, about the American Church’s influence on global Christianity: “What none of us anticipated . . . was that the gravest nationalist threat to Christianity by the late twentieth century might come from the United States, essentially a rehash of the traditional Christian imperialism of western European countries.  It is just the latest example of a self-appointed ‘chosen people’ carrying forth a gospel message reshaped by its own values and bonded to its own political expansion.”

Bro. Chip,
I appreaciate your dedication to pacifism (at one time I was a Seventh-day Adventist) and I clearly see the moral/ethical issues you bring up when Christians discuss war.  But here’s what I mean by priorities:  I had to take a little break from this thread to take care of some necessary chores requested of me by my dear, long suffering wife.  How far do you think I would get by using the argument “Sorry my love, I am discussing the future of the Anglican Communion and the “just war” theory.  Priorities, my man, priorities.

Ha, ha, bjoyfull.  I know what you mean. This would get us waaay off topic but my challenge to “priorities” as a means of navigating moral action is only because I approach such questions from a far more Thomistic, virtue-based mentality.  I’m not sure how much background to include here but I think a virtue ethic does a better job overcoming the difficulties inherent to the more linear, compartmentalized “priorities” approach to moral action.  Again, that’s way too far afield of what we’re doing here but that’s basically what I’m after with my immediately previous post.  I’m right there with you on the virtue of keeping one’s wife happy, though!!

I read both of your links, Pageantmaster, and I fail to see anything that would mitigate what has been posted, and pilloried, here and elsewhere.  I’m of the same mind as David Fischler, above. 

Where was ++Rowan’s commentary on Abu Ghraib when it was under Uday’s management?

From God’s ear at the MCJ to here:
I prefer to read this in the postmodern sense in which it is a critique of the actions of the imperialistic and power-mad ECUSA/TEC running roughshod over the Anglican Communion.  The parallels are striking.  Since the Derridan approach requires that the reader bring to the text life experience (as opposed to the old fashioned notion that one engages the author’s experiences in the story told) and since the Anglican Communion is reeling over the actions of ECUSA/TEC and its persistence in Politburo style administration and dealings with subjected peoples, this is not at all difficult or strenuous.  Merely imagine that oil equals homosexuality, the wall in Bethlehem the non-gay agendites resistance, and the Islamic suicide bombers (wait, those got left out)… .  You get the metaphors I’m sure, so I won’t belabor them.  Of course, Britain here becomes the OT People who did not do as they were instructed with the consequences of this being borne by the abandoned colonies and Israel (of course a metaphor for the faithful Anglican remnant)....  Ah yes, wonderful what can do with texts if one really, REALLY wrestles with them.

Greg, I’m not too far off from your most recent comment above.  And I agree, this isn’t the best forum for a detailed analysis of foreign policy.  I think we can generally support our nation’s goals and policies, and still admit to specific shortcomings that need to be addressed.

Touching on bjoyfull’s reponse to me, my issue here is not to disagree that there are grounds for disappointment with the ABC’s handling of the Communion crisis.  It’s just that the article in question is about the ABC’s perception of USA foreign policy, and most of us are not debating that story; we’re simply using it as an excuse for rude behavior on an unrelated topic.  Criticizing his unwise expression of a malformed opinion might make us feel better, but it’s less helpful than actually correcting or countering his misperception.  JMHO.

That’s a cop-out, Connecticutian.

Since my English teacher mother is glaring down at me from heaven, I need to point out that the Balkans weren ‘t stabilized.

Well, it only took about 30 minutes for someone to suggest this article is really a subliminal retort to TEC revisionist practices!

This criticism of American foreign policy, and understatement of the differences with Islam, are directed at American conservatives. It could have just as easily been written by Schori.

Bro. Chip,
My linear and compartmentalized reasoning for priorities has served me well over the years, being the simple country armchair theologian that I am.  Rowan’s inaction affects me personally as I have had to leave a TEC parish where I love everyone dearly because of the spiritual harlots that are completely and irreversably in control the House of Bishops, General Convention and 815.  To draw yet one more comparison:  Let’s say there is a traffic accident and I am a doctor.  Rather than treating the wounded I stop to talk to the gathering news media about the Right to Life.  It seems to me that I am demeaning the very subject I want to bring attention to the world by ignoring those within my reach to help.  That’s my take on “priorities” (being the simple country armchair theologian that I am).

I thought of the implied criticism of TEC’s imperialism last night but would ask: HOW ABOUT CRITICIZING THEM DIRECTLY AND NOT IN SUBTLE, NUANCED LANGUAGE, YOU DITHERING OLD TWIT! Sorry ‘bout the shouting, but had to get that off my chest.

Whether or not his words are meant to criticize the TEC, they are certainly meant to criticize American foreign policy. I don’t think anyone can beat David Fischler’s essay found here for its plain and stinging rebuke. A couple of excerpts:

As for demilitarization, once he persuades al-Qaeda and the Taliban to lay down their arms, I have no doubt that we will be happy to leave.

In the Archbishop’s world, there’s apparently no room for those who support Israel because 1) it’s a Western democracy; 2) it’s a staunch ally of the US and UK; 3) it’s a haven of safety for people whom many nations have oppressed and expelled, including Britain; 4) it’s home to the freest Arab population in the Middle East; 5) it’s the object of multiple invasions and continuing attacks; 5) insert your favorite reason.

Really a must read. I hope that Rowan checks it out and offers an apology.

Funny how the Archdruid can spout off like this about U.S. foreign policy (a field in which, as far as I can tell, he has no expertise) but getting him to make any kind of definite statement about the crisis in his own church is like pulling teeth.

Robroy,
Your assessment is so true. If Rowan is using subliminal criticism to slap TEC around, he’s a dithering idiot.  If they can’t understand the plain language of the Global South Primates, what makes anyone think they will respond to Freudian Foggery?  The suggestion that he’s “sending a message to TEC” is nonsense. Pure poppycock.

bjoyfull and other re: +++RW’s rant: Actually, he will endear himself to the ultra-libs in TEC and has already offended the orthodox. Is this mission accomplished?

I would like to raise a weak hand to vaguely defend the ABC.

I agree—his comments are ridiculous and ill-informed.

And I stand by my first comment.

But I do think that the headline and paraphrases of the article in the Times serve to set an overdramatic tone.

Also I’m all with Greg on the spineless and the buffoon part.  But I think of “amoral” as somebody like Bill Clinton—who is not able to perceive the difference between right and wrong, hence his ability to lie with fresh-faced innocence.

But I do not think that Archbishop Williams is innately amoral.  That is a dreadful characteristic for a human being, and I only think that there are a few people who are really amoral.

I know that I’m not really stirring in my defense.  But in the interests of fairness, I present what I can.

: < (

I do so so wish that he had simply said nothing.

Or . . . I would have been interested to hear, for instance, his thoughts on just war theory and the criteria for deciding that.

But I do not think him capable of really commenting with much sense on foreign policy or . . . apparently . . . British history.  I just feel bad for him.  He has truly made a buffoon of himself.

I’ve done that before.

Yeah, but I’ll bet you didn’t do so while serving as titular head of one of the world’s largest Christian communions, Sarah.

or while ignoring evrything else swirling around you in your own “home”, Sarah.

I would have been interested to hear, for instance, his thoughts on just war theory and the criteria for deciding that.

This might (genuinely) be of interest to you, then:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/2003/031014.html

Pax

Why does anyone rational want to be ‘in communion’ with Canterbury with folks like Rowan running the zoo?  Anyone who calls him or herself a ‘conservative Anglican’ and wants to be ‘linked’ to this Canterbury cookoo needs to some new birdseed.

WarrenInSC… Being in communion with Canterbury used to mean something to me. How long ago that all seems to me now. But now I am in the AMiA and I am happily in communion with the Church in Rwanda… Quite apart from everything else, it appears fairly obvious to me that God is a LOT closer to the people of Africa than He is to some smug intellectual lightweights in the UK.

WarrenInSC,

Not to sound flippant, but for me, it’s because Canterbury isn’t ++Rowan, and Anglicanism is more than what one aging Brit hippie thinks about US foreign policy.

I for one have to agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury 100 percent.  The US has been an absolutely terrible imperialist.  When push comes to shove we lose our nerve; classic imperial trademarks of draconian sentences, death camps, depopulation, indiscriminate use of force...the US just doesn’t have the stomach for it.  I mean, oh sure, from time to time we get a let crazy but we usually end up full of self-loathing (Vietnam, anyone?)...but I mean for the real challenges, like the French in Algeria, the British in Malaya and South Africa, the Russian in Chechnya, the Belgians in Congo, the Dutch in the East Indieas or even the Sudanese in Darfur we’re just really not up to the challenge.  I mean seriously, Saddam Hussein did a better job than we did. 

(If you can’t take the joke, please just move on...otherwise, I hope this was a nice diversion.)

notworthyofthename wrote:

Greg, I am sorry indeed that in your personal frustration with the Archbishop of Canterbury (which many of us share) you allowed yourself to descend to such epithets. To me it looks like a contravention of the advice given at the bottom of this page, reminding us of Matthew 5:43-45.

Greg Griffith replied:

...I would remind folks that I can criticize Rowan Williams while remaining true to Matthew 5:43-45.

I agree with NWotN, and point also to 1 Tim 5:1.  Greg, would talk to your father like that, even if you disagreed vehemently with him?

rwkachur: Geez, give a person a little notice! I almost soiled my armor!

Slip of the keyboard...I meant to write, “would you talk to your father like that...”

bjoyfull,
I hope you didn’t take offense at my critique of the “priorities” approach to moral theology.  Basically my only problem with priority ethics versus virtue ethics is that, in the midst of any given situation, the former asks, “What am I most obligated to do here?” whereas the latter asks, “What kind of person do I want to be in, through, and as a result of this?” I don’t think priorities are bad or ethically sterile - it’s just that, following St. Thomas, I think the virtue approach is both more productive and holistic.  Whatever keeps your marriage running smoothly and keeps you helping those accident victims is fine by me, though.

I do wonder, however, if +RW is taking a similar (virtue) approach to the current Anglican crises and/or how things might look if all sides did (likewise/in the first place).  It seems as if the terms of the debate are largely ones of law and obligation (to human dignity, to biblical imperatives, to historic orthodoxy, etc.) as opposed to communal spiritual formation and virtue.

I just want to know where is that cheap oil Bush and Chaney went to Iraq to get?  r